Skip to main content

click to enlarge

The president has to go to a FISA court for a wiretap and shuns waterboarding terrorism suspects, yet asserts he can shoot them with a missile anywhere on earth – even if they are an American citizen. John Bolton and most Republicans have praised these new extrajudicial executive powers. We're living in a bad movie.

Follow @MattBors and @DailyKosComics on Twitter.

Originally posted to Comics on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  LMFAO nt (9+ / 0-)

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:52:13 AM PST

    •  Is there an acronym for "laughing my f__ing (19+ / 0-)

      ass off yet crying inside?" LMFAOYCI?

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:34:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "I'm laughing because if I started crying I'm not (12+ / 0-)

        sure I could stop"?

        ILBIISCINSICS?

        It takes a special depth of moral bankruptcy to become the target of Tom Tomorrow.

        by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:14:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe "laughing my f ass off in a sad kind of way" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        temptxan, Kombema, rbird

        LMFAOIASKOW

        “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

        by 420 forever on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:27:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  L&CHATST (6+ / 0-)

        Laughing & Crying Hysterically At The Same Time.

        I have to laugh on some level because if I only let myself cry, I'm not sure I could stop (for real) - like JesseCW above.

        WHAT has become of this country?

        WHY don't we have our constitutional rights and responsibilities restored to us yet?

        9/11 & boogeymen ter'rists under our beds, the big excuses for all bad legislation passed into law, was never valid in the first place.  9/11 consisted of monstrous criminal acts performed by 19 criminals (hijacking planes with box cutters & murder of thousands of people)..., but it was never an act of war by any country.  Why did our legislators lose their minds over monstrous criminal acts performed by criminals using low-tech weapons and start taking away our rights immediately???

        WHY do Congress & this prez still extend all the abuses of power they gave to Dumbya & Dickie, or that they took without asking?

        WHY weren't AUMF, the Patriot Act, MCA '06, FISA fiasco '08 & 'office of faith-based initiatives' repealed within the first week Obama was in office his first term?  WHY did Obama request, and get, MCA '09 passed?

        WHY did Obama continue and expand the drone bombing before his first week in office of his first term had even been completed?

        If it was Dumbya & Dickie doing all these things, we'd still be screaming in frustration and jamming the emails and faxes and phone lines of our Congress Critters to stop the insanity?

        WHY does Obama get a free pass with all of these unconstitutional and illegal moves for doing the same things and extending and increasing the unconstitutional and illegal powers of the executive branch only to pass it on to whoever is president next?

        No one need ever wonder why I am deeply ashamed of being an American since the $COTU$ decision of 12 December 2000.  All of the abuses of power since then can be laid at their door and expanded exponentially with each new illegal and unconstitutional abuse of power by all three branches of government, PLUS pretzel logic that mysteriously made torture not torture, and illegal detention on a US military base mysteriously legal, and made the Nuremberg Defense mysteriously a good excuse for committing war crimes and regular & corporate crimes, PLUS the inclusion of expanded corporate power and endless war with criminals half a world away.

        Let me out of this surreal Dali painting that has become our reality, dammit!!!

        Old, but still valid:
        scotus-corporate-logos

        The 'War on Terror' Designed to Never End by Glenn Greenwald.

        WarEnd

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
        -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

        Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
        -- Benito Mussolini

        Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.
        -- Benito Mussolini

        fascism

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:17:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Unmanned combat air vehicle ~ UCAV (0+ / 0-)

      Keep your friends close.

  •  That being the case (29+ / 0-)

    Let's all see the frickin' memo.

    Then we can have a national debate about it.

    I can think of no rationale for restricting the DoJ advice to a few select Senators who are all bound to secrecy.

    The only reason I can think of is that the Administration don't believe it's legal either.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:01:45 AM PST

  •  Hey! look at this (11+ / 0-)

    Ron Reagan: "Sarah Palin's constituency are people who wear red rubber noses and bells on their shoes."

    by AnnetteK on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:05:50 AM PST

  •  Works so much better with the sound track. (3+ / 0-)

    Sorry, Huge Fan of Alan Silvestri.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:08:28 AM PST

  •  Terrorist in LA, so time for drone strikes (13+ / 0-)

    Now that we now a real live terrorist is operating in and around LA, we should fill the skies over LA with drones, and use some of those super-eefective "double-tap" and "signature" strikes to wipe out any and all terrorists threatening our freedom and liberty.

    We know where the terrorists are: they are north, south, east, and west.  The people of LA will greet us as liberators.   We need to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.

    And America can rest assurred knowing that our government will leave no building standing in the war against terrorism

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:10:50 AM PST

    •  Only because the Terrist is Blah. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, JVolvo, fuzzyguy, NonnyO

      I ♥ President Obama and have his back.
      Hands off SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. NO subsidies to rich Corps.
      Rich pay more, bloated DoD steal less. End war on Afghanistan 01/01/14.

      by OleHippieChick on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:42:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's almost as if you're cheering for/encouraging (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban, sviscusi

      it.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:54:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Over 80% of Americans approve (8+ / 0-)

        Recent surveys show that over 80% of Americans approve of the use of drone strikes to kill terrorists.

        We have a terrorist problem in and around LA.  Drone strikes have killed terrorists in Pakistand and elsewhere.  Americans want terrorists killed and want to use drone to do so.  

        Using drones to bomb terrorists in the streets of LA is a win-win-win: terrorists die, we get to use drones, and the American people applaud.  What's not to like?

        And as the RKBA people are wont to say: sometimes violence is the answer.  

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:05:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the RKBA people are also wont to say: (5+ / 0-)

          PAY ATTENTION to the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.

          I can think of no better reason to outlaw Barrett .50 Caliber rifles, than to want unfettered success for a drone program - without fear of ground fire dropping remote-controlled weapons.

          Of course, we could take a page from the Iranians, and just hijack the signal. o
          Or send a 100 model rocket volley up, each with a hardened light-metal penetrator.  

          Fuck with just one of the Government/Contractor toys of surveillance and suppression, and see how fast our kinder/gentler Government shows why DHS has up-armored to this great degree.

          Computer?  You get no internet.  Cell phone?  You get no cell phone network.  Travel?  Ha.  Where's your pass... "citizen"?  Perhaps Dianne's AWB2 has merit. After all, if you don't like our policies, we can't have you resisting our new interpretation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments:

          IV) You have the right to crawl out from under your door with your hands out to your sides, and be secured in your home with your possessions.

          V) You have the right to tell us what we want to hear, wether you did it or not - and have your lawyer jailed in an adjoining cellblock.

          It's the Gitmo way, the American way, and get fucking used to it, as it's worked in country-after-country for over a decade.

          But... but... we're liberal progressives!!!

          So was Trotsky.

          Things didn't go so well for him, or his family.

          •  Again: 80% of Americans approve (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zinger99

            Again: over 80% of Americans approve of the use of drone strikes to fight terrorists.  

            How can you argue against popular public opinion?

            How can you argue against the Democratic (and very progressive!) president who tell us a) drone strikes are very effective in killing terrorists, and b) no civilians have been killed in drone strikes against terrorists?

            You voted for these drone strikes when you voted for this president, knowing that the president ordered the use of drones to bomb homes and cities (myself, I voted for Jill Stein).

            If drone strikes are a bad idea for killing terrorists in LA, then drone strikes are equally a bad idea for killing terrorists in other places as well.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:34:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marsanges, zinger99, NonnyO
              How can you argue against the Democratic (and very progressive!) president who tell us a) drone strikes are very effective in killing terrorists, and b) no civilians have been killed in drone strikes against terrorists?
              that behavior is what is considered progressive now, then I'll regress to just being a plain ole socialist again.
          •  Are you saying the Bill of Rights isn't a buffet? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            alain2112

            Are you saying that we can't just pick the parts of the Bill of Rights that we like the most and then ignore the rest?

            Well, you might have had a good point there.....

            ......if you and your 2nd Amendment allies weren't habitually and systematically ignoring the first part of the 2nd Amendment.....you know, the part about a well REGULATED militia.

            In the Fox News Christian Nation, public schools won't teach sex education and evolution; instead they'll have an NRA sponsored Shots for Tots: Gunz in Schoolz program.

            by xynz on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:37:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  xynz while you conveniently ignore (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy

              "shall not be infringed"?  

              I'm all-for militia regulation, concurrent with the usage of "regulation" at the dawn of the 19th Century.

              What of freedom from religion?  I've been told: "that's right in the First Amendment".

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; the section in bold seems oft-overlooked.

              This isn't Chinese take-out.

              •  Hit it again! Go ahead! Whack it hard!! (0+ / 0-)

                That strawman doesn't stand a chance against you!

                In the Fox News Christian Nation, public schools won't teach sex education and evolution; instead they'll have an NRA sponsored Shots for Tots: Gunz in Schoolz program.

                by xynz on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:28:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  So, if my religion requires virgin sacrifices and (0+ / 0-)

                I want to carry a Davy Crockett into the gallery of the Supreme Court..?

                You are extremely facile, aren't you.

                Yeah, how about instead of worrying about the ability to take down drones (gunships, F16's) when turned against U.S. citizens...

                ...how about we concentrating on limiting the power of the UE so they never have the idea they can? Because at that point your precious little 50cal fantasy isn't worth shit.

        •  RKBA has zero to do with this; you're seriously (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          just another vet, fuzzyguy, sviscusi

          looking to start something imo, from that comment and the one I originally responded to. I'll take my leave.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:10:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nicely stated, Hugh (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zinger99, badger

          When 70% or 80% or whatever large majority of a populace agrees on an issue, they are very often later proved wrong.  Until they are, though, someone suffers from the error.  The fact of majority approval is never proof of the "rightness" of a position.  

          The wisdom of my forebears ... Two wise people will never agree. Man begins in dust and ends in dust — meanwhile it's good to drink some vodka. A man studies until he's seventy and dies a fool.

          by Not A Bot on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:41:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Police use snipers to kill terrorists (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      And I can imagine military force being used to stop terrorists, in a case where it ultimately saves more American lives than are lost.

      Suppose the next hijacked jet is aimed at the Congress during the State of the Union.

      Do you suppose the military and the civilian government are going to let that happen, or will they fire on the plane?

      This is not a Harry Potter movie where someone can wave a wand and utter "Protecto!"

      •  Do you think we ought to blow up an apartment (12+ / 0-)

        building in the US with a 500 lb warhead if we believe that terrorists are inside it possibly plotting attacks?

        Because that's what we're actually doing.

        Not shooting down hijacked planes.

        It takes a special depth of moral bankruptcy to become the target of Tom Tomorrow.

        by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:19:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's the great thing about drone strikes (7+ / 0-)

        That's the great thing about drone strikes: they ONLY kill terrorists, and NO civiliams are ever injuried.  (You have been following the reports this administration makes on the effectiveness of drone strikes, haven't you?).

        See, the way it works is that ONLY buildings where terrorists are will be targeted (and we NEVER target the wrong building - this is the US military we are talking about!).  We confirm there are terrorists in that building by the "signature" of terrorist behaviors: going to the store, buying stuff, meeting people, having conversations, driving around - you know, all that suspicious stuff.  We KNOW all the other people in that building are supporters of terrorists.  Who else would live in a building where there is a terrorists except supporters of terrorists.  And because we want to stamp out the terrorist network, we should kill all the supporters of terrorists.  Then we drop in a double-tap strike: BOOM! wait ten minutes and BOOM!  This way we kill the terrorists, the supporters of terrorists, and any sympathizers who come to dig the terrorists and their supporters out of the rubble.

        So if there are terrorists in LA (and the authorities are telling us there are terrorists in LA), then we should immediately kill them with drone strikes.

        Just like we do in Pakistan!!!  

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:34:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  But drones don't (8+ / 0-)

    kill people...

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:17:50 AM PST

  •  Judge Dread comic reference (10+ / 0-)

    A most excellent analogy.

    In case anyone isn't aware of Judge Dread, from wiki:

    Dredd is an American law enforcement officer in a violent city of the future where uniformed Judges combine the powers of police, judge, jury and executioner. Dredd and his fellow Judges are empowered to arrest, sentence, and even execute criminals on the spot.  

    "I don't cry over milk spilled under bridges. I go make lemonade" - Bucky Katt

    by quill on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:24:09 AM PST

  •  I have Obama's back on this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hooper, ericlewis0

    He is a progressive and he is far better than the alternative--a warmongering racist rethugliKKKlan in the White House.

    •  Oh goody (22+ / 0-)

      The republic is saved!

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:28:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  70% of Democrats approve of Droooooooooooonnneesss (7+ / 0-)

        According to the latest CBS Poll.

        I'm in the 30% opposed, but you have a lot of work cut out for you if you want to change Obama's position.

        •  Then I guess I should just give up (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hooper, JesseCW

          Just like all those Obama supporters clearly did when told that he had no chance against Hillary in 2007-8...

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:46:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Giving up has been the advice I gave to all PUMAs (0+ / 0-)

            But they were pathetic dead-enders, the lowest of the low.

            My advice to you is patience. Look at how recalcitrant attitudes towards gay rights have changed in just the past 9 years.

            •  Passive or active patience? (0+ / 0-)

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:40:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, other civil rights movements... (0+ / 0-)

                ...have tended to be active.

                •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

                  I thought you were suggesting we wait this out and let Obama work his 11DC magic and stop messing with his special juju.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:54:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's not 11-Dimensional Chess, just regular Chess (0+ / 0-)

                    The strategy is simple: Why risk it if no one's complaining?

                    I'm not saying I agree with that, I just strongly suspect that's his thinking. He has the support of 70% of Democrats, after all.

                    Part of the problem may also be a little bit of tribalism. People, especially on the left, respond in a very protective manner in the face of such unwarranted hysterical criticism of Obama from the right, and thus they may be inclined to simply agree because Obama is a Democrat.

                    •  That's certainly part of it (0+ / 0-)

                      A part I find to be silly, symptomatic of the culture of infantilism prevalent in the US these days, a form of partisanship I dislike. But I think that a lot of people simply don't care about issues that seem beyond their own lives, like torture, drones, bailouts, poverty. They "care", they just don't CARE. It's symptomatic of the hypocrisy of much of modern, lifestyle liberalism.

                      Thing is, few progressive advances have been made in the US that have had majority support or even interest initially. They always begin with a small group of determined activists pushing for reform. So I honestly could care less if most Dems are "ok" with these things, because their views are shallow and self-interested and not based on any genuine concern for what's right or good.

                      On some issues, I say screw public opinion.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:49:22 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Which makes the drone war right! (14+ / 0-)

          And imagine what how much lower that number would be if President Obama hadn't gone drone-wild -- that's precisely the problem with his embracing (and in this case, intensifying) Bushian policies -- they become institutionalized and popular.

          •  I actually don't blame Obama for that (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SethRightmer, Wolf10, claude, Aspe4, Kombema

            Or even necessarily the media. I blame stupid, lazy, apathetic, hypocritical, cowardly Americans for that--i.e. most Americans, even most Dems.

            At the end of the day, most people just want a nice home, decent income, some kids, a dog, and maybe an Xbox or Netflix subscription, and they don't really care about anything else so long as they have these. It's unfortunately all too human to be selfish and oblivious about things that don't affect you personally. Other peoples problems are, well, other peoples problems.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:01:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  lmao (0+ / 0-)

            nice try trying to change the point there

            the use of drones is incredibly well support and even more amazing broadly so that's his point

            the only way you will get Obama to stop using them is to make them unpopular. Personally I hope you fail because I'm in the 70% that does support them but hey best of luck to you

        •  Drones better alternative than army divisions (0+ / 0-)

          This is your choice:

          1) Hit the high level member of Al Qaeda with a drone.
          2) Send in a couple army divisions into Pakistan.
          3) Do nothing.

          What is your choice?

          •  Presenting a false set of choices doesn't actually (18+ / 0-)

            limit our options.

            Well, unless we're stupid enough to accept a frame work invented by Dick Cheney.

            Slaughtering civilians as you advocate has only served to recruit terrorists faster than we can kill them.

            It takes a special depth of moral bankruptcy to become the target of Tom Tomorrow.

            by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:22:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bin Laden was killed with a drone? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            badger, rivercard, banjolele, BradyB

            Nuz 2 me.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:27:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  False Analogy (0+ / 0-)

              Obviously we could have taken out the Abottobad compound with any manner of exotic airborne weaponry.  The problem is once it was blown to smithereens there would be no proof that Bin Laden was ever there that anyone would every accept.  Since he was the most potent symbol of terrorism, it was necessary to take him out with human beings who can bear witness.  Personally I have a reasonable comfort level with drones.   As romantic as it is to give rebels arms, that is the blowback that led to 9/11 in the first place.  Is there going to be blowback from the use of drones?  Sure, people will be pissed at us (they always will be) but at least we aren't giving weapons to people who are difficult to vet and whose allegiances can easily change.  See the Arab Spring.  I think Obama has really screwed up here by not providing air cover against Assad's air force.  This is what is driving resentment against us in Syria, a country with a rich history, not drone strikes in Afghanistan, which is a toilet.  

              •  The commenter claimed there were only 3 ways (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BradyB, majyqman

                to deal with alleged terrorists, one of which was drones. I used the most famous example of our taking out a terrorist to refute this, and moreover to show that there are many ways to deal with terrorists beyond drones. Always have been. And in any case the debate was never about drones, per se, or any specific kind of method, but about any method used needing to follow due process and not violate the constitution. Some people here seem to think that that's a quaint notion that risks are national security. I suggest that they don't know what they're talking about and should stick to XBox versions of keeping us safe. I always thought that the other party had a lock on violating the law. I was wrong. Lots of armchair Cheneys here.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:00:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  And when we STILL haven't talked about (11+ / 0-)

      drones and we get another Winger in Office?

      I won't cover this for him now to have that happen later.

      Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance. Kurt Vonnegut

      by ToKnowWhy on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:30:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, but you know, (5+ / 0-)

      if even a progressive Democrat can use drone strikes -- assuming we can agree that he is one -- then imagine what latitude that gives to the assorted Yosemite Sam wingnuts the Republicans have lined up for the next presidential nomination.

      In any event, I'm not sure the drones themselves are capable of giving a crap about race. They are, essentially, "color-blind."

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:41:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We'd have a little trouble agreeing on that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aspe4

        and I think Mr. Obama would also be unlikely to call himself a progressive Democrat, since he's already stated, publicly, that his policies are 1980s-era moderate Republican.

        In no way does this mean I disagree with the tenor of your argument, which is that when a Republican- or, considering the ongoing right trajectory of the Democratic party establishment, another "mainstream Dem"- gets into power, there's no telling what horrors will occur.

        And, for what it's worth, I accept that Mr. Obama is the best President we could possibly expect to have at this moment in time. Doesn't mean he's a progressive, though.

    •  I support the drone policy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hooper, duhban, TexasTom

      What is the alternative? Sending a couple divisions to invade Pakistan every time we see a high level Al Qaeda target?

      •  The alternative is this: (19+ / 0-)

        Not invading a sovereign country simply because a non governmental group that has attacked us at some time time in the past operates there now. Your whole premise is screwed up.

        Terrorism is more properly an issue for the police, not the military.

        By your logic, the rest of the world would be justified in sending drones in to America to kill, say, Henry Kissinger. Or is it only okay when we do it?

        •  What? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sviscusi

          Know what?  There is so much wrong and ignorance in your comment, I'm just going to let it ride.

          The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

          by lcj98 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:51:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then you fail (5+ / 0-)

            You have convinced no one and added nothing to the conversation. A fart in a hurricane has more depth and substance. I have no respect for your worthless opinion.

            •  Odd... (0+ / 0-)

              I wasn't aware that I was trying to convince anybody of anything, or add anything for that matter.  I foolishly thought I made that clear.  Oh well, I guess you can continue on to being ignorant and insulted.

              The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

              by lcj98 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:28:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then why post anything? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                majyqman

                You obviously had a motive for posting your trash. I believe that your motive was to convince people I am wrong.

                What's more, you continue to engage me. Why do so? Did you, or did you not make your point?  I think you failed miserably.

                I have no respect for your opinions. Therefore, I am not insulted. Your opinion of me is uninformed and juvenile, it really doesn't matter.

                I am trying to point this out to encourage good debate. If you have a reasoned criticism, by all means share it.

                •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                  If you don't care about my opinions then why ask me questions and further this conversation?  You could've easily ignored what I said and continued on with your day, however, you feel it necessary to have a hissy fit over me saying that your comment is ignorant.  If you truly wanted to allegedly "encourage good debate", you should actually engage in a debate.  Not expect people to placate to you and stroke you fragile ego.

                  The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

                  by lcj98 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:58:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh come now, my good man! (0+ / 0-)

                    This is hardly a hissy fit, you aren't worthy of strong emotion. Sad that you need to continue in this juvenile vein, but I expected no less. Come back when you are ready to hold an adult debate. By that, I mean attempting to refute the position I already put forth. Until then, I bid you good day.

                  •  That he has no respect for your opinions does not (0+ / 0-)

                    mean he can not attempt to goad you to into revealing the length and breadth of their perniciousness for all to see so they may, armed with that knowledge" readily ignore your extant "contributions" and raise the overall level of the discourse.

                    Put simply, you don't get to squat on the conversation and then ask someone why they care when they hold the crap up to your nose and ask you to tell everyone with a straight face it doesn't smell.

      •  I support it too, but I think it's time for it to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denig, sviscusi

        change.  We can't put the genie back in the bottle but we might be able to teach him some rules.

        There needs to be a legal process so that these weapons aren't used arbitrarily, particularly after Obama's term.  The time to start is now, imo.

        Unlike some, I do trust Obama to be very cautious with using drones.  But that's not enough, we need rules & laws and processes set up so neither he nor some future leader will go nuts with them.

      •  Even if you support the use of drones, (4+ / 0-)

        I am not sure why you'd accept the policy (or "policy") on their use against American citizens as laid out recently. A definition of "imminent" that does not involve actual imminence? Using deadly violence to eliminate merely "the threat of violence"? Using the term "self-defence" to describe attacks against someone who has not yet attacked you?

        One could support the use of drones, I suppose, and still be considered a rational actor. I'd heartily disagree, but there could be some allowance for difference of opinion. But supporting a policy like the one leaked recently? No, I couldn't understand why anyone would do that.

        •  I support it... (0+ / 0-)

          An American citizenship isn't a shield.

          The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

          by lcj98 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:01:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  TY for admitting no respect for the constitution. (0+ / 0-)

            See, this pesky little thing called Article 3 Section 3.

            If you support the policy as laid out in the white paper you admit you have no respect for the constitution.

            Because where are the two witnesses?

            But "armed combatant" you scream. Yeah, ANYONE who falls under Art3Sec3 could be given that designation...

            ...so unless the unitary executive CHOOSES to request the two witnesses, for whatever reason, they would never HAVE to.

            And, given Art3Sec3 was EXPLICITELY a shield against executive power...

            ...well, you just have to admit you don't mind continuing to wipe with the constitution after dropping your turds all over this thread.

            This is ignoring of course "due process of law" applies to even pesky brown people... and intertional law whatsoever...

            Just that citizenship should be a further shield if you've gone beyond caring about those things and we need to stop you by rubbing your face in what you've been wiping with.

          •  So, when it is proven you're wrong... crickets? (0+ / 0-)

            I've proven how (constitutionally) American citizenship IS a shield even if you want to take the abhorrant stance that being a person entitled to due process of law is not...

            ...no reevaluation of your (true, not very well elucidated to begin with) position?

      •  I don't. I think it doesn't go far enough. It (0+ / 0-)

        doesn't use enough weapons and the weaponry involved is not damaging enough. I just won't be satisfied until the scale of suffering is much larger. I say the strike radius ought to be expanded--after all those individuals within a few hundred yards who aren't killed by our indiscriminant use of drones' firepower are more likely going to be terrorists after the strike (if they weren't already), and there's no use taking that chance.

      •  Even if we ignore all the due process problems, (0+ / 0-)

        And breaches of international law and the constitution that the drone policy entails, and I believe people have greater concerns about than the method of execution...

        ...was the OBL raid "a couple of divisions"? No? Then That's not needed and you're presenting a false dichotomy even within the microcosm that ignores "don't breach U.S. or international law or the contitution".

        Kindly stop.

    •  Oh, goody. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snoopydawg, majyqman

      With Obama in charge, this shredding of the Constitution doesn't matter!

      If you can't see the kabuki theatre played out by the plutocrats (the MIC, the PIC and Wall Street) with the Democrats as the "good cops" and the GOP as the "bad cops", then you're willfully blind.

      "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

      by Australian2 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:32:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hopefully they won't mix-up the paperwork... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      majyqman

      and paint a target on yours.

      I have Obama's back on this

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:41:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You didn't spend a second thinking through that, (0+ / 0-)

      to what happens when a Unitary Executive who you DON'T support is in power, did you?

      You don't get to not like the policy then, btw... also far too late to matter even if you were allowed to squat all over logical consistancy.

      No, it's a BAD policy so I don't care that there's a NICE GUY (read: benevolent dictator) in power... one day it WON'T be the nice guy. By then the policy is entrenched.

  •  Hey, the new Dredd movie was pretty good (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, duhban, JesseCW, 420 forever

    I will agree that the Sylvester Stallone one from the 90s was terrible. But give the new one a rental.

    •  I would have liked a little more from it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, JesseCW

      It was a great concept, and very well executed, but was too short.

      It's only a 90min movie.

      And the corrupt Judges, something common in the comic books, from what I understand, seemed tacked on.

      They needed 30 more minutes to make it excellent.

      Many people don't understand the Dystopia in which Dredd operates, so some background information to make the world even richer would have been useful.

      Just my thoughts.

  •  Gotta wonder how many people (8+ / 0-)

    are going to view and like this cartoon in an unironic way. As in, "You go kick some terrorist ass, Mr. President! We got your back booyah!".

    Call of Duty Progressives, barely out of their 40's.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:31:04 AM PST

  •  Fun Fact About Judge Dredd (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aspe4

    though you never see his full face the design for the character is based on Clint Eastwood, who would later go on to fame talking to an empty chair.

    Bonus fun fact, that is the second comic character based on Eastwood, the other being the Western character Jonah Hex

  •  drones (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban, hooper, sviscusi

    I see no problem with 'droning' some taliban wannabee in Yemen even if he is a US citizen.  He took up arms against his country, and is therefore a traitor.  The arguement that the govt could do it to all US citizens is on a par with the NRA arguement that armed citizens will stop a massacre.  Has that EVER happened?  Nope.

    •  'Slippery Slope' arguments are acceptable here (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ToKnowWhy, hooper, fuzzyguy

      on this topic...just not anywhere else.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:47:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  War is hell (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban, hooper

      Those who want to pretend that the right to a fair trial applies to war are smoking something.

      •  Yes, but there does need to be more process for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denig

        making decisions about when & where to use them.  Not regular trials, obviously, but a clear set of criteria and some structure other than the Pres for making those decisions.  And I like the idea that they should be deployed by the military, not the CIA.

        We're right at the point where drones will become a multinational free-for-all, if not brought under tighter control.

      •  Nice job Armando. See what you did here? nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BradyB, fuzzyguy

        “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

        by 420 forever on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:37:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps just the right to due process of LAW would (0+ / 0-)

        be a start.

        Perhaps when you realise that without this, under the Sep18 AUMF, YOU can be targetted and, as there will be NO REVIEW, it will never be proven you weren't associated with an organization involved in 9/11... not that the vindictation would do your corpse much good.. you might gain the smallest iota of appreciation for why this is a big deal and glib "fair trial applies to war" cracks about smoking things makes you look like a facile fool.

        Or maybe not.

    •  You know that he's traitor, because the (8+ / 0-)

      President said so.

      What more is there?

      It takes a special depth of moral bankruptcy to become the target of Tom Tomorrow.

      by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:25:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just gotta ask (12+ / 0-)

      Do you have, like, secret evidence that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki took up arms against the US? Just in case you're not sure who he was, he was the son of the elder al-Awlaki. The 16-year old was killed by a drone strike, separately from his father, and from the third American citizen killed by a drone strike.

      No Administration official has ever given a single reason for why the younger al-Awlaki was killed. In fact, the only comment made that even obliquely addresses this was made by Robert Gibbs. He blamed Abdulrahman's family for his death, saying that he should have had a better father.

      So, a question for you and the two people who recommended your post: what evidence do you have that a 16-year old boy was a traitor? For bonus points, don't you think that if there were evidence, it would have been released already by the people who killed him?

    •  You realise if he's a traitor, the gov is required (0+ / 0-)

      to present two witnesses to the same overt act, right?

      Article 3, Section 3.

      But "enemy combatant" you scream!

      Sure, if the stike was on the "operations of the land forces" of the enemy, and he was there (but not the reason). Or there was imminence, as in he was firing on a position and they killed him in return fire.

      But otherwise? You DO, I hope, realise that the policy you support means they government would NEVER have to present the two witnesses, as they could give the "enemy combatant" designation to AYNONE to whom Article 3 Section 3 would otherwise apply and summarily execute them.

      Just because you never expect it to happen to "all" U.S. citizens doesn't mean that doing it to even ONE isn't an end run by the unitary executive around a requirement of the constitution thats explicit purpose was a check on the power of the executive... so unconstitutional on its face.

    •  Waiting for you to address the Article 3 Section 3 (0+ / 0-)

      Issue...

      ...but not holding my breath.

      It's not on par with your NRA BS, because that's a practical matter, we know, because of  logic (a theatre full of armed and scared people in the dark against an armored opponent would have been WORSE) and evidence (entire armed gun club couldn't) and...

      It. Has. Happened.

      This is a matter of whether the option is available at all to the unitary executive to do an end run around a part of the constitution explicitely created to be a check in his power.

      That Genie just got let out of the bottle, and he could still be stuffed back in.

      But not while people like you make inane arguments about not having a problem, and others legal apologistic in defense of the Genie being out...

      Just wait until it's someone who you don't so vehemental feel should have died...

      ...but then again, you'll believe the government when they tell you you should feel that way about whoever they killed...

      ...and there will be no review that could expose to you otherwise.

      Enjoy your brave new world.

  •  Phuckitol (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ToKnowWhy, snoopydawg

    Is this a bad dream or something? From the NDAA and the kill list/drone program, to the drug war camo clad paramilitary force every fricken county in America now has... From his decision to allow the previous administration's crimes go unchallenged, to his unwillingness to hold Wall Street crooks accountable, to his disgusting treatment of whistle blowers... I for one can no longer defend President Obama's actions even in spite of the unconscionable obstruction and treatment he has faced his entire time in office. The fact remains he has broken his oath to uphold the Constitution which sadly leaves me with the firm belief he should be tried for impeachment. Any 5th grader can determine the NDAA is unconstitutional, let alone a "Constitutional Scholar" from Harvard. Let's face it folks, the President is simply playing good cop in partnership with the GOP playing bad cop, but the end result is We The People are hung out to dry. Enough is enough.

  •  Ugh, I almost desire to HR you for referencing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nightsweat

    the exposure to Judge Dredd that most USA viewers are familiar with, thereby reinforcing how it awful that otherwise rich character is unfortunately better known.

    But, your use of the characterization in this comic is pitch-perfect, so that negates my fanboy uproar.

    Just watch yourself, creep.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:45:43 AM PST

  •  ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, hooper, ericlewis0

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:46:50 AM PST

  •  LBJ was much better & much worse than BHO... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, hooper, JayBat

    As a kid I remember how radical LBJ was in his social policy and yet how hideous his Vietnam War was.  There were weeks and weeks when 100 boys would be coming home in boxes, etc. etc., etc.

    Here we are talking about 3 US and maybe a little more, but hardly the 58,000+ who died in Vietnam.  

    I don't like these drones and the fucking never-ending war but BHO is hardly the first US President, sadly, to be a war criminal.  

    We need to keep fighting against never-ending war, but we can't just trash our President wholesale.  The bulk of what he has done is good.  (Of course, there's a lot more good he could do, but that's a subject for another post.)

    •  Who is trashing him wholesale? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, maryabein, gooderservice

      For example, I generally think that FDR was a great president, but the whole attempt to pack the Supreme Court was a major mistake.

      Likewise, while I much prefer President Obama to the alternatives we were given, that doesn't mean I have to agree with nor support ALL of his policies.

      The comic is great, but I don't think that the 70% of Democrats who support the non-ironic reading are going to be swayed by it.

      Fortunately, since we've never had cases in this country where Habeas Corpus has been suspended, nor dogs and water cannon turned on citizens located in the US, nor FBI agents infiltrating peace activism groups, we can rest safe in the knowledge that drones will never be used against Proper Americans.

      •  So FDR's big mistake was packing the SC (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Not A Bot

        but hey, that whole throwing Japanese people into concentration camps thing was great. Not that we had to throw German-Americans in camps, because they're white right!

        If we only had FDR and Truman and their campaign of terror bombing civilian targets to maximize the amount of noncombatants burned alive in raging infernos and nuclear blasts, we wouldn't have to deal with President Obama and his singularly terrible drone policy.

        When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

        by PhillyJeff on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:19:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Roosevelt was right to pack the Courts... (0+ / 0-)

          I wish that Obama had his kind of balls.

          The Japanese Internment was shameful.

          As for bombing civilians, war is disgusting and evil.  I don't care how wonderful your cause is.  World War II was necessary.  The problem is with the unnecessary wars (most of them) and the never ending "long war" against "terrorism."

      •  A lot of folks on the far left.... (0+ / 0-)

        ....Michael Moore never will be in the White House.  Nor would he want to.

        I agree, I worry about drones.  I also worry about the never-ending war more, whether it's with drones, bombs or boots on the ground.

  •  Due process is one of very few concepts ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nightsweat, snoopydawg, rlochow

    ... that is fundamental to separating a civilized nation from barbarians.  Obama has proved himself to be on Bush's level, perhaps lower, because Obama KNOWS better, or at one time, so he claimed.  It can only get worse from here.  If I had voted for this president, I'd be very badly disappointed.  As things stand, I worry very much what comes later, how many small steps or large ones the next president and the next, will take in this same direction, all for the sake of "freedom."

     

    The wisdom of my forebears ... Two wise people will never agree. Man begins in dust and ends in dust — meanwhile it's good to drink some vodka. A man studies until he's seventy and dies a fool.

    by Not A Bot on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:58:28 AM PST

  •  There is no due process in war! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hooper

    I've never seen a soldier IN A WAR get a court order before firing on the enemy.

    I am as liberal as anyone here. But unlike some, I have no fantasy of a nice clean war where every military strike first goes to court, where soldiers only target non-US citizens, or even where only the intended military target is killed.

    War is hell.
    War is where we throw away all the rules of a civilized society except for the laws of war.

    •  We're not at war (9+ / 0-)

      There's been no declaration, unless the AUMF is it. And if the AUMF is it, then the whole world is the battlefield, from Mogadishu to Paris to Des Moines.

      "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

      by nightsweat on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:05:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's what the "white paper" says (3+ / 0-)

        the AUMF, which referenced specific countries and a specific organization as regards one terrible incident on American soil, nevertheless is now interpreted to allow for war-like operations in any country, where any individual or entity deemed a "terrorist" lives or operates.

        So, yes, it is now all war, all the time, against anyone that a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces designates. For extra points, since terrorism is a concept that will never die, the AUMF will almost certainly be in effect- and used to kill people- long after each and every one of us here is dead.

    •  This is roughly indistinguishable from Viet Nam (0+ / 0-)

      at least in the impact on the enemy, and thus their opinions of us as a country. There is little difference between bombing villages from B-52s because some of the inhabitants are either enemy soldiers, or enemy sympathizers, knowing that you will kill innocent civilians, and doing the same thing with a drone. Well, except for the fact that at least some of the B-52 missions were brought down by enemy fire, while drones don't result in MIAs.

      I don't so much object to the fact that we're killing the enemy as that we're being so damn secret about it. Nobody had to hide the fact that we were firebombing Dresden because it was part of the stated goal of destroying a clearly identified enemy. Yet, when it comes to this war we classify the decision making process and the actual body counts of the combatants and civilians killed. If you're afraid to take open credit for the process and the results it is probably because you're not proud of one or both of them.

      •  Even firebombing Dresden was a war crime. (0+ / 0-)

        Seriously not a difficult concept, it was laid out in the Hague:

        http://www.icrc.org/...

        Art. 22. Any air bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civil population or destroying or damaging private property without military character or injuring non-combatants, is forbidden.
        Or even if you contend another goal:
        3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;
        So, there's that.
    •  No. You're not. You just showed us that you're (6+ / 0-)

      not.

      I am as liberal as anyone here.

      It takes a special depth of moral bankruptcy to become the target of Tom Tomorrow.

      by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:28:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not trials, but a clear, public policy on when & (0+ / 0-)

      where they're allowed to be used, plus some kind of FISA-like board to approve use, seems possible.  And imo we should stop using the word "war" for hunting down members of groups working to kill Americans.

    •  I'll say this very slowly: We. Are. Not. At. War. (0+ / 0-)

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:52:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes there's always due process of law! (0+ / 0-)

      What that is may have to suit the circumstances...

      But this isn't two artillery positions firing on eachother or a brutal struggle in a fox hole.

      But this isn't "operations involving the land forces"

      When you accuse someone of treason and want them dead you are at the very minimum required by the constitution to present two witnesses to the same overt act.

      And an end run by the unitary executive of declaring them "enemy combatants" and having them summarily executed does not pass constitutional muster... as that would ALL that woulf EVER be required (they could do a show trial with the witnesses, but it would no longer be required) to circumvent a requirement that was explicitely a check on the power of the executive.

      I hope you have enough respect for the constitution to change your opinion here.

  •  Drones are just the tip of the iceberg (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn

    If you look at the technology that's coming, we're likely to see semi-autonomous land vehicles and waterborne drones in the near future.  And that's dangerous because it lowers the barrier to action.  If there's no chance of an American soldier coming home in a box, more presidents are going to be more likely to send in the bots to more situations.

    Which is all well and good until enemy bots show up based on our technology.

    Good for the Dow Average I suppose.

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:09:07 AM PST

  •  Sorry Matt Bors, no, just NO. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb, blueyedace2

    Your ex-fan,

    I ♥ President Obama and have his back.
    Hands off SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. NO subsidies to rich Corps.
    Rich pay more, bloated DoD steal less. End war on Afghanistan 01/01/14.

    by OleHippieChick on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:22:50 AM PST

    •  I'm sure you were a huge fan of Bors right (10+ / 0-)

      until this moment.

      After all, it's not like he's ever been critical of Obama's illegal assassination campaign before.

      It takes a special depth of moral bankruptcy to become the target of Tom Tomorrow.

      by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:29:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's been pushing me in this direction. (0+ / 0-)

        I haven't said anything before. What's it to you if I say it now?

        I ♥ President Obama and have his back.
        Hands off SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. NO subsidies to rich Corps.
        Rich pay more, bloated DoD steal less. End war on Afghanistan 01/01/14.

        by OleHippieChick on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:35:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Two of three lines in your signature run counter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW

      to the object of your first line's policy goals: he wants to "strengthen" SS, Medicare and Medicaid (by cutting them), has gladly given or expanded subsidies to "rich Corps", done almost literally nothing about DoD corruption and contract fraud, and doesn't have any end for Afghanistan planned for this year so far.

      He has got the rich to pay (a scant amount) more. So he gets credit for that. I guess one out of seven isn't bad, but it makes me wonder if you're cognizant of what's actually going on.

      •  Those are some of the things (0+ / 0-)

        I apply pressure for on the admin. I'm not just saying them in a sig. You don't know what I do outside of here. Cognizant of what's actually going on? And I'm so sure you both are authorities on "what's going on." Pah.

        I ♥ President Obama and have his back.
        Hands off SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. NO subsidies to rich Corps.
        Rich pay more, bloated DoD steal less. End war on Afghanistan 01/01/14.

        by OleHippieChick on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 09:57:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm just saying that if you "have his back" you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          are working counter to the sentiments expressed in your sig lines. That includes nullifying, in whole or part, whatever pressure you are putting on the administration in other contexts, so said pressure is literally irrelevant to my comment, and therefore makes yours non-responsive. Well done!

  •  swing and a miss Tom (0+ / 0-)

    swing and a miss

  •  The effect of too many video games? nt (0+ / 0-)

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:28:58 AM PST

  •  Drones are not our enemy. Just a tool. (0+ / 0-)

    I see where it's simple to blame and criticize this situation. But I also notice that nothing has really changed over the years except two things. 1) the enemy isn't a country with an army and 2). the technology is a lot smaller, more versatile and volatile. Other than that, this is the same old U.S. Govt at work here.

    Now that is not a defense nor an apology for this situation. It's just a summary of how we got here. We should and must, as a nation, redefine how we go after individuals and groups throughout the world. And I think behind the scenes and the late night snark we are likely doing that. It's just that times have changed rapidly over the decade and we have been reacting too roughshod over the rules of engagement. It's time we took a deep breath and simply redefined out self defense policy.

    I see UAVs armed or unarmed as just another tool brought to us by technology. It can be misused and it can save lives both domestically through tracking fire outbreaks or abroad in tracking terrorist movements. We just need better oversight (NOT CONGRESS!) to make it justified.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:37:32 AM PST

  •  That was a great one (0+ / 0-)

    Lawgiver would be a more apt name instead of Predator. Only one mode though.

    Please get Brian Bolland (!!!!!) to do the cover if you ever decide to do a minicomic of Judge Obama

  •  Accuser, judge and jury wrapped up in one person (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, 420 forever, softserve

    who promised the most transparent administration ever and has not delivered.  Can't even image what the results of video gaming war will bring to the world 30 years down the road. Thank you not, President Obama.

    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

    by temptxan on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:13:46 AM PST

  •  Great cartoon. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    420 forever

    Thank you.

  •  Two words. (0+ / 0-)

    Naomi Klein. Seriously, after reading these comments, I wonder if a comic book edition of The Shock Doctrine might be in order. So many people wailing "what's become of our country."  Naomi spelled it out clearly from where I stand.

    Tell me a story of deep delight. - Robert Penn Warren

    by bisleybum on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:43:34 PM PST

Click here for the mobile view of the site